Yeah, I'm not too worried about all those immigrants "Poisoning My Blood", mine came pre-poisoned by the Scots, Irish, English, Danes, and Neanderthals.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
What do you think about DNA/ancestry test kits?
- Thread starter hbarcat
- Start date
I'm curious, but not quite curious enough to spend the money.
Spoiler alert: my biological brother's result had measurable amounts of neanderthal.
Spoiler alert: my biological brother's result had measurable amounts of neanderthal.
MyHeritage test days I'm mostly Ashkenazi Jew, which corresponds with my family history as I know it.
Ancestry.com test says I'm 70% Sicilian, which dooesn't.
YMMV
Ancestry.com test says I'm 70% Sicilian, which dooesn't.
YMMV
Went with a discount company, 21 and Me, no biological samples required, you just fill out a ten question form, $1.99…Found out i was 97% Neanderthal, 3% Klingon. I chew with my mouth open, occasionally throw food, and belch uncontrollably, so there’s that.
probability of Warren's Native American ancestry ranges from 1/32 to 1/512, but now reports the low end of that range is actually 1/1,024. People say well that still is proof she is NA. Well, she is a lot more of something else! Why not claim that?
That sounds political to me. we should drop it right there.
My wife runs the local dog rescue "RUFFCUE" and she occasionally gets the DNA-myDog results done, and most of the results coming back from the local Rez dog population seem pretty unlikely. A local Husky/Lab cross carrying 5% Corgie? Taking that one with a grain of salt
I think you put the "so what" in the wrong place - should be after the last phrase.While the data will fall into the hands of the government , unless your a criminal..........so what . You can check into your history without giving a sample of your DNA ..........who knows , maybe your related to Kevin Bacon or Dave Grohl .
Just ran across this old Forbes article, and this is a key point for me."Which is nonsense, because DNA has the potential to reveal far more about a person than his or her identity."
Invalid Link Removed
I do care about it, others may not, and that's fine with me. I guess I took "Gattaca" as a "warning" of what the future might include.
I think you put the "so what" in the wrong place - should be after the last phrase.
"Which is nonsense, because DNA has the potential to reveal far more about a person than his or her identity."
Invalid Link Removed
I do care about it, others may not, and that's fine with me. I guess I took "Gattaca" as a "warning" of what the future might include.
Obtaining suspects’ DNA willy-nilly is a bad thing for sure. This decision seems to go against the intent of the fourth amendment. However, personally, I’m not sure how I feel about it.
While I’m anti-big-brother, I’m not sure I have a problem obtaining DNA from a dude who is caught red-handed doing a violent crime.
I do think it ought to require a warrant or an indictment or an arraignment and that there should be a high standard for such an action. Remember, we keep people in jail prior to trial based upon similar standards. It is important to note that in this case (Maryland v King), the Supreme Court’s majority noted:
Maryland law defines a crime of violence to include murder, rape, first-degree assault, kidnaping, arson, sexual assault, and a variety of other serious crimes. Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. §14–101 (Lexis 2012). Once taken, a DNA sample may not be processed or placed in a database before the individual is arraigned (unless the individual consents).
Source: MARYLAND v. KING
However, for the DNA to be useful in solving crime, an active comparison in a broad database must occur, which means that a suspect’s genetic info would be shared and communicated outside the collecting agency. This only happened in Maryland after the suspect was arrested and arraigned.
If the judge had found no probable cause at the arraignment or if he had been found not guilty, the dna sample would have been deleted.
Really, who cares what some schmo like me thinks. But, I’d rather see the sample collected after arraignment or via warrant, if we are to permit such testing. It’s also funny… they seem to equate testing only certain regions of DNA with only collecting certain regions. That ain’t the case.
Anyway, thanks for sharing and thanks for making me think.
Last edited:
D
Everyone, they already know more about you than you think. If "they" wanted to, your identity can be easily had. Many times with a Warrant.
So if you haven't done something unlawful, or got someone pregnant that you don't want to know about, who cares. Have fun finding out about yourself. Imo.
So if you haven't done something unlawful, or got someone pregnant that you don't want to know about, who cares. Have fun finding out about yourself. Imo.
I'm way more concerned about "one drop rules". There are a couple places on earth right now where if they could, they would. There have been a lot of other places on Earth, WITHIN LIVING MEMORY, where if they could have accessed DNA proving that a person had even "one drop" of the forbidden ancestry, that person would have been rounded up and done away with.
Do you REALLY think that somehow this can't happen? It will be happening before you and I die, I bet you.
Do you REALLY think that somehow this can't happen? It will be happening before you and I die, I bet you.
D
Im
I agree. I'm saying, I can happen and will happen as well! Therefore it doesn't matter if you look up "history" about youself. again imo.
Well, as far as I know no one has my DNA at present. There are a lot of people like me. I recommend to them that they not freely give out their DNA for fun. And personally I'm as sure as sure can be that I have no at-risk genetic heritage, so it's not about me personally. But if there were a very wealthy person who also felt that it was their calling to do a genocide on a group of people, buying a controlling interest in one of these "supposedly for entertainment purposes" DNA companies would be a path to it. Or just get legislation passed that required such companies provide free access to governmental officials with "the right" credentials. Scan for XYZ genetics, identify the names and mailing addresses of everyone whose DNA test shows XYZ, round 'em up.
I am certain this will happen within my lifetime, but as long as it remains optional to give up DNA, I strongly recommend not doing so.
Why would you want to know about ancestors? I can barely believe who I am looking in the mirror. Private view, private thoughts.
I would not trust what they say. Those companies say their results are only about 50% accurate, and depend on other people's tests. An identical twin sent their DNA to multiple organizations independently, and got very different results. Their video was on YouTube if you'd like to check.
I feel the same way about submitting a DNA sample for ***** and giggles as I did about child fingerprinting when that was a thing. I saw it more as fodder for the IAFIS than a “valuable tool to aid in the identification of missing children.” Given the short lived duration of our notional child fingerprinting efforts, a lot of parents agreed with me.
I was thinking about mentioning the "one-drop rule" in my above post. I'm glad you brought it up.
^This^. I've read - and heard - that these company's tests are little more than "feel good" bumf; I have better things to waste my money on. And, at 73? A little late to start worrying about stuff like that, anyway. Besides, I already know who my ancestor's were, 4 generations back. Far enough back to argue with family members about; any older? Who the Hell cares? In any case; scientists already know that all of us are descended from one female, about 10,000 years ago; so... why bother?
Last edited:
